Telecom has used unfair commercial practices

Mobiltel” JSC has applied an unfair commercial practice, providing false information to consumers, the proposed lease handsets coded to work only with SIM cards of telecom, will be unlocked for free and freely use with cards of other operators after expiration of fixed-term contracts.

This is the final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), which confirms the administrative act of the Commission for Consumer Protection (CCP) issued Unfair Commercial Practices reported by CCP.

SAC confirmed a decision of the CPC for UCP of Mtel

SAC confirmed a decision of the CPC for UCP of Mtel

Devices that Mtel sells of leasing in most cases are coded and can work only with the SIM card of the same mobile operator.

It becomes clear that employees of telecom has convicted consumers that after the completion of the contract by which was provided encrypted mobile phone by the company for free would be given a code to unlock it.

A check performed by the Commission for Protection of Consumers, however, found that for the providing of the code is necessary to pay the price indicated in the price list of the operator. Results from the check also shows that information for decoding fee which varies according to the price of the phone (from 50 to 150 lev) is placed only on Mtel website. According to the Commission for Protection of Consumers, it means that users without internet access are unable to make informed choices.

Commission for protection of consumers

Commission for protection of consumers

With the latest amendments to the Law on consumer protection was provided when a final decision of the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed an unfair commercial practice, users to have the right to terminate the contract with the trader concluded as a result of using this practice and to claim compensation in front the courts.

The law also provides the final decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court to be binding on the civil court, the right of consumers to seek redress lapse upon the expiration of five years from the date of entry into force of the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court, says also the message of the Commission for Protection of Consumers.

 

 

Comments are closed.